First Council of Nicaea: when Christianity was deformed and Jesus named son of God.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It’s definitional. You can’t reasonably argue that a heterodox religious position is anything BUT heresy. Bear it mind that declaring a belief to be heretical doesn’t establish which belief is correct, only that the minority position is seen as a threat to the majority. And the Arians were decidedly in the minority. As I’ve told you before, the belief you call ‘Nicene Christianity’ was the majority position of most Christians before the Council ever took place. If you have actual evidence to the contrary, I’ll be happy to consider it.

Boru

Heterodox religious beliefs were always present in Christianity; even the NT  had a heterodox sections that were "filtered" and "rejected" by the religious institution:

a list of the books of Holy Scripture was drawn up,[9] and these books (including some considered apocryphal by Protestants) are still regarded as the constituents of the Catholic canon. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippo_Regi...l_of_Hippo
Are Catholics "heretics" or are Protestants are "heretics"?
As I said it will end in bloodshed.

I’m not sure why you’re dragging the Synod of Hippo into this, but ok.

While heresy is definitional, the application of the term depends on who is doing the applying. So yes, both Catholics and Protestants are heretics in the view of the other franchise, just as Sunnis and Shiites may view each other as heretics (and both may view YOU as a heretic for your rejection of the aHadith). But as I said earlier, a charge of heresy doesn’t - by itself - mean that the heretical view is necessarily wrong. Put another way, you can be declared a heretic and still be right.

Your position that religious conflict leads to bloodshed is roughly on a part with predicting that water is wet.

Boru